I do not believe that being Southern Baptist breeds KKK members but I do think that if you are a KKK member or sympathizer looking around for a church, you will gravitate towards a conservative church without many (or any) blacks. Many SB churches fill that bill. They will feel more comfortable there. The fact that the SBC has a racially motivated origin may also be a draw but not as much as being lilly white in the present.

Some of my own stray thoughts.

Informed by Data.Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.

William Thornton wrote:Sandy's anecdotes are fine with me. He knew kkker years ago. Big deal. I don't know of any but with 15m on the rolls there's bound to be one, same for the Methodists, etc.

No doubt there are a scattering of Klan members in many Protestant denominations, since the religious aspect of their philosophy is rooted in white, Protestant Christian theology.

Your statement was that you claimed not to know a single Southern Baptist who was more comfortable with the KKK and Neo-Nazis than they would be with liberals. Maybe you don't actually know any. But if you go to social media, and take a look at the hatred, the name calling, mischaracterization and out and out lying about "liberals" by political conservatives, you're going to have a real hard time making a case for the accuracy of that statement. Right wing conservative media has contributed to a severely divisive, "Us vs Them" mentality when it comes to political liberals, to the point where there is a core group who don't believe that anyone to the left of them has a right to participate in society or government. There are plenty of Southern Baptists with that religious right wing mentality. The fact that you don't know any Southern Baptists who feel that way is just as anecdotal as the fact that I do.

It took an extra effort and some prodding and pushing to get the SBC to pass a resolution condemning white supremacy and the alt-right. It was written by an African American pastor, and the leadership-appointed and stacked resolutions committee initially rejected it outright. When they finally did get around to passing a resolution, they criticized the pastor's original motion as "poorly written" and passed one that was a little bit more watered down. I think that's pretty good evidence that there were some Southern Baptists in the convention hall in Phoenix who, while they might not be KKK members themselves, would be more comfortable with them than with "liberals." This whole "both sides are to blame" crapola is a way to avoid taking a stand against the violence of the alt-right.

Sandy wrote:No doubt there are a scattering of Klan members in many Protestant denominations

I agree. Many (perhaps most) KKK members do not self identify in public. Thus there are many KKK members in the proverbial church closet be they pastors, staff, members or attenders. SPLC places get membership at 6000 in the US. The Anti-Defornation League places the membership at 3000. But I suspect there are many more sympathizers.

Informed by Data.Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.

William Thornton wrote:While Sandy is usually very savvy on SBC inside baseball, he either misunderstands or mischaracterizes the SBC action on altright.J

Can you elaborate? What Sandy described is basically the way it looked to me. Here's the raw material:

It took an extra effort and some prodding and pushing to get the SBC to pass a resolution condemning white supremacy and the alt-right. It was written by an African American pastor, and the leadership-appointed and stacked resolutions committee initially rejected it outright. When they finally did get around to passing a resolution, they criticized the pastor's original motion as "poorly written" and passed one that was a little bit more watered down.

KKK were quite active in Northern Baptist churches in Seattle and surroundings in the early 20th century. Don't know of anything openly that way since mid-century hereabouts, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were deacons around who still bought into the stuff, not to mention members. And this is liberal Seattle. I assume Southern Baptists and the South generally to be more prone to that sort of stuff than we are.

Interesting reading the KKK discussion. I was born in the South in the 1950s, raised here, lived here all my life. I've never been personally acquainted with anyone who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Yes, I "know of" folks like David Duke, and it is always possible that someone I knew was a member and hid it (though I really doubt there could have been much of that). I don't think it is remotely as important as some people seem to think it is.

William Thornton wrote:No. Antifa is credited with store smashing and assorted thuggery, intimidation. The seed bed is the same. Labels are different. Criminal gangs.

Right wing media sources credit Antifa with store smashing and assorted thuggery, intimidation. I haven't seen any reliable sources, just allegations. It's a way to divert attention from the real thugs and intimidation by the alt right white supremacists, and it keeps getting brought up only by those who don't seem to want to go so far as to actually condemn the violence of the alt right.

I am not sure if you consider Morning Joe reliable but he ties ANTIFA to the burnings / store window smashing and violence at Berkley. RM has spoken out against ANTIFA also.

One can't with integrity criticize the far right evils (KKK and others) without equally criticize the far left evils (ANTIFA and others). It matters not the size of the group - evil is evil.

To which Keith replies... "I find these sorts of putoffs offensive and would ask that you stop that."

Sandy later says to JIm... "With God, all things are possible, but I guess you don't believe that."

To which Keith replies... " "

I guess telling someone they don't believe the bible because they see things differently, politically and make a puttoff comment as Sandy did above is not offensive to Keith. I am trying to figure out if I am surprised or not.

Yes, it is indeed interesting. Parts of it remind me nostalgically of the school boycott in the mid-1960s, and of the Moratorium marches a few years later for which I skipped school. But my teachers were never involved in recruiting me for those actions, nor for motivating me to be a Voluntary Racial Transfer student the year after the boycott.

BAMN's name says it all, though. If you idealize Lenin, maybe Trotsky, and Che, and if you believe that Nazism is really resurgent, then what means ARE necessary? When does it become a good thing, if you think Malcolm was brighter than Martin, to motivate your students to help stop what you see as evil? I'm not sure. But I will say I'll bet the teachers mentioned by name in this article (and yes, I know it's The Daily Caller) are difficult for articulate students who have a different set of admirations to study under. BAMN's full name is "Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights, and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary", and here isits website. I'm not sure what the RWL counts as a member, but I think Wikipedia's "20 members nationwide" has got to be an underestimation of the outfit's numbers.

The NAMBLA connection is quite a bit more tenuous. While there was "contact" between the RWL and NAMBLA in the 90s, I see nothing to suggest contact between BAMN and NAMBLA except for apparently one activist having been active in both as well as in the RWL, and that one person in common may actually be all the connection there was between the RWL and NAMBLA, too. In other words, it's quite likely more "guilt by association" than a substantive connection. In the aftermath of 9/11, when I was sitting guard duty in the middle of the night outside the Idris Mosque, I was officially listed as doing so on behalf of KELI. Does this mean "an international Esperanto organization was involved in pro-Muslim demonstrations in the middle of the night in a residential section of North Seattle"? Yup.

Dave Roberts wrote:I seriously doubt that the Daily Caller is a credible news source. The violent fringes of any movement are problematic to the causes the larger concerns represent.

It's definitely Op-Ed stuff for the most part, but its bias is pretty clear, and this article provides information that I hadn't seen elsewhere (but then, I don't read much news) that can be investigated by those interested in other, perhaps less biased sources.

But it is certainly true that the "violent fringes of any movement" are a problem. BAMN appears to be possibly such a group; the name supports the possibility. Now, whether shouting over people constitutes "violence" is another gray area. Most folks (myself included) are, at least at first glance, more inclined to give people a pass when they're on the "same side" of some left/center/right supposed continuum that we are on. "Antifa" (and "Antifascist"; same thing? Maybe, maybe not), "alt-right" (does this include Breitbart? TheDC? KKK? Neo-Nazis? gay gay gay Mr. Yiannopoulos? Trump? the Koch brothers? Pence? Focus on the Family? the Libertarian Party?), "Trump supporters" (obviously a lot of KKK and neo-Nazi folks have been quick to don that mantle, but should they be believed?)... All these terms (as well as less extreme ones like "fundamentalist", "Islamic", "Christian", "environmentalist", "pro-choice", "pro-life", "conservative", "liberal", "moderate"/"centrist", etc. etc. and I haven't even mentioned climate change!) are fluid enough, prone enough to be modified by the bias of the user, to be useless for serious discussion without constant clarifications, and even then the terms used in clarifying may themselves need the same treatment...

William Thornton wrote:Timothy, you wish to eliminate the first amendment rights of the group's you label hate groups?

I am saying no right is absolute, including the first amendment. If you incite violence, promote hate, encourage beliefs that lead to destruction, that is a crime. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me is the biggest lie ever told to children.

Jon Estes wrote:WILLIAM SAYS... "TDR...take a pill bro. She lost. Get over it."

To which Keith replies... "I find these sorts of putoffs offensive and would ask that you stop that."

Sandy later says to JIm... "With God, all things are possible, but I guess you don't believe that."

To which Keith replies... " "

I guess telling someone they don't believe the bible because they see things differently, politically and make a puttoff comment as Sandy did above is not offensive to Keith. I am trying to figure out if I am surprised or not.

There are clear differences between the “offensive lines”. William has used that line many times, trying to end the discussion; iow a “putoff". Sandy's “offensive line” was given once to challenge Jim on the basis of common ground (belief in the bible) and encourage discussion; iow not a putoff. Neither lines have been very effective argumentation, imo.

Informed by Data.Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.

Jon Estes wrote:WILLIAM SAYS... "TDR...take a pill bro. She lost. Get over it."

To which Keith replies... "I find these sorts of putoffs offensive and would ask that you stop that."

Sandy later says to JIm... "With God, all things are possible, but I guess you don't believe that."

To which Keith replies... " "

I guess telling someone they don't believe the bible because they see things differently, politically and make a puttoff comment as Sandy did above is not offensive to Keith. I am trying to figure out if I am surprised or not.

There are clear differences between the “offensive lines”. William has used that line many times, trying to end the discussion; iow a “putoff". Sandy's “offensive line” was given once to challenge Jim on the basis of common ground (belief in the bible) and encourage discussion; iow not a putoff. Neither lines have been very effective argumentation, imo.

Sorry Keith but your response was extremely shallow.

One is a cultural / political comment and if it is to end the argument, that could be a very good thing. The other was a slap to someone's spiritual intelligence just because they disagree.

You can chastise anyone you want for any reason you want - you have the whistle and striped shirt. The refusal to look the other way when one participant intentionally calls into question the spiritual aptitude says a lot about the refereeing here. It looks a lot like the MSM in their coverage of Clinton vs. Trump. For the one they think like they give a pass... for the other... they breath wrong so, therefore, are open to full scrutiny.

The irony here is the one you look the other way for is one who pushes hard for equality (I guess that would mean in treatment also).

William Thornton wrote:Timothy, you wish to eliminate the first amendment rights of the group's you label hate groups?

I am saying no right is absolute, including the first amendment. If you incite violence, promote hate, encourage beliefs that lead to destruction, that is a crime. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me is the biggest lie ever told to children.

You wish to criminalize thoughts, beliefs if the Gummit thinks these "lead to destruction"? Should neo-nazis, white (or black) supremacists, extremist ihatefags fundies, and similar groups not have first amendment rights?

There is a body of law and precedent on inciting violence. No one is arguing in favor of that or is excusing that.

Jon Estes wrote:WILLIAM SAYS... "TDR...take a pill bro. She lost. Get over it."

To which Keith replies... "I find these sorts of putoffs offensive and would ask that you stop that."

Sandy later says to JIm... "With God, all things are possible, but I guess you don't believe that."

To which Keith replies... " "

I guess telling someone they don't believe the bible because they see things differently, politically and make a puttoff comment as Sandy did above is not offensive to Keith. I am trying to figure out if I am surprised or not.

There are clear differences between the “offensive lines”. William has used that line many times, trying to end the discussion; iow a “putoff". Sandy's “offensive line” was given once to challenge Jim on the basis of common ground (belief in the bible) and encourage discussion; iow not a putoff. Neither lines have been very effective argumentation, imo.

Sorry Keith but your response was extremely shallow.

One is a cultural / political comment and if it is to end the argument, that could be a very good thing. The other was a slap to someone's spiritual intelligence just because they disagree.

You can chastise anyone you want for any reason you want - you have the whistle and striped shirt. The refusal to look the other way when one participant intentionally calls into question the spiritual aptitude says a lot about the refereeing here. It looks a lot like the MSM in their coverage of Clinton vs. Trump. For the one they think like they give a pass... for the other... they breath wrong so, therefore, are open to full scrutiny.

The irony here is the one you look the other way for is one who pushes hard for equality (I guess that would mean in treatment also).

It is now, to me, a dead horse I will beat no further.

Keith occasionally gets into a mood where he wants to school marm a discussion. While I'll respectfully consider why he does so if it involves me, the best course is almost always to ignore it and move along. People sometimes get frustrated here. Blame it on Trump and the unexpected election result.

Jon Estes wrote:WILLIAM SAYS... "TDR...take a pill bro. She lost. Get over it."

To which Keith replies... "I find these sorts of putoffs offensive and would ask that you stop that."

Sandy later says to JIm... "With God, all things are possible, but I guess you don't believe that."

To which Keith replies... " "

I guess telling someone they don't believe the bible because they see things differently, politically and make a puttoff comment as Sandy did above is not offensive to Keith. I am trying to figure out if I am surprised or not.

There are clear differences between the “offensive lines”. William has used that line many times, trying to end the discussion; iow a “putoff". Sandy's “offensive line” was given once to challenge Jim on the basis of common ground (belief in the bible) and encourage discussion; iow not a putoff. Neither lines have been very effective argumentation, imo.

Sorry Keith but your response was extremely shallow.

One is a cultural / political comment and if it is to end the argument, that could be a very good thing. The other was a slap to someone's spiritual intelligence just because they disagree.

You can chastise anyone you want for any reason you want - you have the whistle and striped shirt. The refusal to look the other way when one participant intentionally calls into question the spiritual aptitude says a lot about the refereeing here. It looks a lot like the MSM in their coverage of Clinton vs. Trump. For the one they think like they give a pass... for the other... they breath wrong so, therefore, are open to full scrutiny.

The irony here is the one you look the other way for is one who pushes hard for equality (I guess that would mean in treatment also).

It is now, to me, a dead horse I will beat no further.

Political comment from a faith perspective is what this forum is all about. Sometimes cultural factors enter in (like with gun control). Sandy was not so much slapping Jim's spiritual intelligence as he was appealing to it. And Sandy has only used that line (be it “offensive” or not) once that I can recall. If there was an element of sarcasm there (and that is really not justifiably claimed) it comes amidst Jim's typically dense douse of sarcasm (often very literately and humorouly given).

Informed by Data.Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.

William Thornton wrote:Keith occasionally gets into a mood where he wants to school marm a discussion. While I'll respectfully consider why he does so if it involves me, the best course is almost always to ignore it and move along. People sometimes get frustrated here. Blame it on Trump and the unexpected election result.

So William (again) assigns moods and frustrations of others to unexpected election results (underlined above). The classier thing to do is actually engage the points being made.

He also re-uses his old line about me being like a school marm. Merriam- Webster Defintion of "school marm”.

noun, Older Use.1.a female schoolteacher, especially of the old-time country school type, popularly held to be strict and priggish.

Informed by Data.Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.

Someone was wondering about the Clergy Leadership Network that was founded back in 2003 to get rid of Bush 43. There's a lot of material on this, so here is one link: https://www.layman.org/newse2ff/. It was partly funded by Soros money and was the "soft" version of AntiFa and made up ONLY of ministers in the beginning. It went through some sort of "evolution" and so somewhere along the way it included Laity in the battle against King George 43, probably for lack of enough funds to keep Dr. Pennybacker flying back-and-forth between Lexington, Ky., his home, and Washington, his office. It was a dismal failure, though highly endorsed by James Dunn, who also sat on its board and was a financial contributor. All this stuff is a matter of record if anyone cares to look it up. I wrote some stuff about it at the time and still laugh when I think about it. It hung around for a while after its un-success in one form or another, also a matter of record if anyone cares to look. I don't. It was a sort of creature of the NCCC, of which Pennybacker had been or maybe still was a head honcho. Nuff said as to its moral high-ground. For those wasting time, here is something I wrote at the time: http://clarkscorner.org/relpol.html.

William Thornton wrote:Keith occasionally gets into a mood where he wants to school marm a discussion. While I'll respectfully consider why he does so if it involves me, the best course is almost always to ignore it and move along. People sometimes get frustrated here. Blame it on Trump and the unexpected election result.

So William (again) assigns moods and frustrations of others to unexpected election results (underlined above). The classier thing to do is actually engage the points being made.

He also re-uses his old line about me being like a school marm. Merriam- Webster Defintion of "school marm”.

noun, Older Use.1.a female schoolteacher, especially of the old-time country school type, popularly held to be strict and priggish.

I stand by it. You'd save yourself a lot of angst if you would let things go.